Interesting. A Norwegian company is looking to make biodiesel made out of wood. Is it doable?

Norske Skog looks to bio-diesel

Norske Skog will form a joint venture with forest owners to produce wood-based bio-fuels at a plant to be built at its Follum mill in Norway, the company said on Friday.

"The investment in a prototype for bio-diesel production at Follum is estimated at NOK 100-200 million (USD 17.91 million - USD 35.82 million)," Norske Skog said in a statement.

Norske Skog will take 60 percent and the forest owner cooperatives 40 percent of the venture, the company said.

The chairman of the Forest Owners Union, Helge Evju, told financial web site E24 Friday that they were also united in opposing recent plans to split up Norske Skog according to geographic or business areas.

A triumvirate of Norwegian business tycoons, Petter A. Stordalen, Øystein Stray Spetalen and Ove Gusevik have recently acquired a 5.78 share of Norske Skog through their company Unionen, and have floated a number of ideas to rejuvenate the Norwegian paper giant.

The forest owners have a nearly 15 percent stake in Norske Skog. Evju praised many of the recent Unionen suggestions for the future of the company, but said there was unanimous opposition to any splitting of Norse Skog.

 

Normally I would say no you cannot make Biod outta wood because there is no alkyl esters. This is likely some sort of gasification/smoke oil or pyrolysis oil or... Heck, maybe they are doing FT. The problem with FT is that even with free feedstocks, the equipment is so expensive that its not economical even @ 100/bbl. Very quickly, a billion$ FT plant will have to start paying for feedstocks AND transport because of the scale (or take up residence @ a coal mine mouth).

It seems that the europeans have started to call anything that is a diesel substitute, biod for tax classification reasons.

 New & portable FT for diesel. Should know the cost, etc by July 1.:

Diversified Energy and Velocys Selected to Develop Portable Fuel Unit for the U.S. Department of Defense

(12/11/2007)

Team wins contract to develop portable renewable fuel production system

PLAIN CITY, Ohio, December 11, 2007 – Diversified Energy Corporation (DEC) and Velocys Inc. have been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to design a portable renewable fuel production system based on DEC’s breakthrough HydroMax gasification technology and Velocys’ advanced Fischer-Tropsch approach.  The goal of the DOD funded effort is to develop a transportable system that can convert waste products generated at military installations into 50 to 500 barrels per day of high performance renewable fuels, such as diesel and aviation fuel.

DOD is the single largest fuel consumer in the country, with an annual fuel budget of $9 billion.  Forward operating military bases generate scores of waste material and have an enormous demand for fuel products.  As a result, an opportunity exists to incorporate advanced energy conversion technologies that can utilize waste materials to generate high performance fuels; thereby, reducing the logistical burden of fuel transportation for military operations.  These benefits will ultimately result in lower military operating costs and markedly improved energy security.

DEC’s HydroMax gasification technology, under license from Alchemix Corporation, will be used to convert waste products (biomass, solid-waste, etc.) into a synthesis gas, also known as syngas.  A Velocys microchannel Fischer-Tropsch unit will then convert the syngas into diesel and jet fuel for a variety of military applications.  This DOD Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I project will include bench-scale test data analysis, conceptual design of a transportable fuel production system, economic analysis, and a detailed assessment of system modularity and transportability.

“We are extremely pleased to be working with the U.S. Department of Defense to advance and commercialize technologies that will improve energy security and stabilize military fuel costs,” said Phillip Brown, DEC President and CEO. “Our HydroMax gasification technology offers a highly efficient and economical approach for converting waste material into valuable energy products for military use.” Velocys Business Development Manager Jeff McDaniel commented: “Working with Diversified Energy on this critical DOD fuel project is ideal for Velocys as our technology integrates nicely with DEC’s HydroMax gasification approach.  Our gas-to-liquids technology is one-tenth the size of conventional systems and, as a result, we are able to achieve the transportability objective outlined by the DOD.” 

At the conclusion of the Phase I SBIR effort, the DEC/Velocys team will compete for a Phase II project that will fund development of a prototype integrated fuel production system.

 

 

 

 I also wouldn't be amazed if they  weren't doing wood-to-methanol-to-DME and calling is biodiesel. One place they say biofuel & another biodiesel. Things can get skewed in the translation.

Martin 

Perotter,

You keep posting the same PR. You understand that this is not a reality right? This is PR. They are working with a phase 1 SBIR so they likely only have any idea and alot of brain power and the data to back it up and have laid out a way to prove it out.  They even say...

perotter:

This DOD Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I project will include bench-scale test data analysis, conceptual design of a transportable fuel production system, economic analysis, and a detailed assessment of system modularity and transportability.

...which means they think they might have a benchtop model that might work. PR of majic FT catalyst is nothing new, what would be new is the reality of that on a working scale. This project is far away from that scale. And the sig.fig. of benchtop extrapolations are what gets alot of PR headlines but can easily turns out to be vaporware.

Want my opinion? If they really have what they say they have... SBIR would just get into the way. There are coal mines that are willing to invest billions into FT if given the right technology. As well as big oil. The idea may have validity but I doubt they have anything more than the idea and the brain power to maybe make it a reality.

perotter:

  I also wouldn't be amazed if they  weren't doing wood-to-methanol-to-DME and calling is biodiesel.

DME is starting to get alot of play. My guess is they would have said DME if that was the product.

Slightly off topic, with methanol having alot of value, why spend the extra $ to DME in todays clime?

 The break thru in this is the simple idea of building the FT unit on a modular & portable basis. By making them modular they can be manufactured instead of built. That is a huge saving in the capital investment. Also to get any large scale biomass to liq fuel in the US at a reason cost, the unit to process it need to be poetable.

They also have a signed contract for building a unit in the last half of 2008. They have run their bench scale unit non stop for 1200 hours. Shell Oil can only get theirs to run about 250 hours. One reason being wax build up on the catalyst.    

That said, this is a DOD project. What they are willing to pay for JP-8 & diesel delivered in the field can very easily be more than what you & me will pay for it.

The same basic tech, but with the catalyst to produce methanol and/or ethanol it MAY be something of use.

Why of course I want your opinion froggy. If you didn't give your opion this forum would lack balance. I don't think that the big oil companies do want small biomass to liq fuel plant. If you are getting your biomass from farmers & someone else sets up a plant nearby that pays a little more or the biomass, they just lost all their feed stock. There are a few other reasons also.

I didn't make it over to your place in 2007 froggy. I hope the 2008 works out.

Martin 

   

 

 

 

froggy, 

 I added the DME in there because on this forum when it come to engines & fuel it seems nobody knows bmep from bte or bte from sfc or have any understanding of what can be done with ecu & a fuel deliverly unit. Keep most of the folks here in their comfort zone.

A few weeks ago I read that a biomass to methanol plant was making methanol for $0.78 a gallon. The only reason to make it into DME is the comfort zone thing. I got a copy of a epa report on converting a production 19.5 to 1 CR diesel engine to methanol/ethanol. On methanol the bte was .42

Methanol has been made from coal, natural gas & biomass since 1913. The process is well understood. As a fuel it works well in gasoline engines, diesel engines & fuel cell. IMO, we should just go with it.

Martin 

       

 

 

perotter:

   The break thru in this is the simple idea of building the FT unit on a modular & portable basis. 

The supposid breakthru is a catalyst that replaces the whole of the FT so they can decrease the footprint of the system. Again with the majic catalyst...   FT = huge capital costs and huge op costs, billions. Even @ 10x reduction in costs as the PR states, we are talking 100's of millions of existing systems like Sasol in S. Africa. To get it to the scale they are talking about would need a reduction of costs in the 50-100x range.

My point here is to make sure we understand the difference between research and actual commercialization. If one is getting SBIR's, its pretty much a given its research and that commercialization is years off (if ever). My guess is that vast majority SBIR's never get off the ground commercially.

Dont get me wrong, democritization of energy is import and a 'portable FT' would be big. Its just that knowing the little that I do about the op's of FT, it seems unlikely that it can be done on the small scale they are talking about profitably. This reminds me of another co that within the past few years said they could do what they said, even had a shinny truck that they could pull it around to show ppl how well it worked. I believe the CEO is either hiding or doing 5-10yrs about now...  

perotter:

I didn't make it over to your place in 2007 froggy. I hope the 2008 works out. 

If you wait a few months, we might meet in the middle. Been talking with ppl in Eau Claire area that have some of the expertise and facilities I need.

 I understand that this isn't proven & even if it is usable by the DOD in the field, it may not be usable in the civilian world. From what I've read on the FT process using biomass the net btu yield is the same as the btu yield of converting the biomass into methanol/ethanol via the gasifaction process. 

The thing is that the cost per btu for the FT diesel is several times higher.  

Eau Claire is home for me & I have a little land there. Let me when you are going & I'll try to meet you there.

Martin